~ A site for women interested in a red pill perspective (where men are welcome too!)

Why Feminism Can’t Work

Feminism, the idea that women can do or be anything that men can be, that women and men can be the same and equal in every way, can’t work because it is based on a flawed premise to begin with.

Men and women are not exactly the same minus the genitals. Men and women are different right down to a cellular level — XX or XY. Men and women are biologically different, and that’s an undeniable scientific fact.

That’s not to say women and men can’t be separate but equal. Or that either male or female is “better” or “best.” More like they are two halves of one whole.

Things would actually work a lot better if women would recognize and accept this rather than continue to demand the government make everything equal, as if the government is some sort of parent who has to make sure everything is “fair.”

Women actually have the easier part of the deal, to manage home and hearth, so I am not sure why they demanded to go out to work everyday, fight on the front line, or do all those things men do (and are made to do that women are not) anyway.

At best a feminist world will never truly be self sufficient, equal, and autonomous. Feminism will always require an outside force, likely government and a socialist system, to make it work. If women give up on the provision and protection of invividual men, they will still demand it collectively from all men.

And that’s not really fair or equal, now is it?

Let those who have ears hear.

Share this:

Like this:

Post navigation

27 thoughts on “Why Feminism Can’t Work”

I think the last point touches on the heart of the matter: the original feminists (not suffragists or suffragettes, but the actual first wave) were women who could not secure the protection and provisions of the man they wanted, or, indeed, any man.

Therefore, they wanted to work to earn their own keep and prove they didn’t need a man… unless that one particular man becomes available. They wanted to protection and provision of all men… until that one man settles down. They wanted to be surrounded by a healthy, comforting male aura, if not “his”, then hopefully all of mankind’s.

They’re the sort of woman who doesn’t want to be married because she doesn’t like most of her suitors, but doesn’t want to live with her parents because it’s immature, but doesn’t want to become a nun because what if the right man shows(?!) They’re best left to themselves, not followed.

It can’t work because it intends to replace women’s direct dependence on men with indirect dependence through socialism. About socialism, Margaret Thatcher said it best, “It’s all well and fine until you run out of other people’s money”.
Also, it’s engine is fueled by suspicion and contempt for men and it does all it can to foster more of this.

That’s not to say women and men can’t be separate but equal. Or that either male or female is “better” or “best.” More like they are two halves of one whole.

Sorry, NO. Women will never be equal and the reason is women are cursed by God, Adam was not. Instead of cursing Adam (which would have applied to Christ) God cursed the ground.

Genesis 3:16 cursed all women with 3 things:

1. Greatly increased pain in childbirth,
2. Your “desire” will be for your husband
3. He shall rule over you

The first part is why childbirth should be a female-only activity. No men allowed. The husband shouldn’t be allowed in until it’s over, the baby has been cleaned up and she has had herself cleaned up, hair done, whatever. All this crap about men should be there for the birth is asinine. Women have no place on the battlefield and men have no place in the birthing room. Both of those places display a side of the person that neither should ever have to see of the other.

That second point is where female hypergamy comes from. The word desire is used in only 2 other places in scripture with 2 different meanings. The first is a desire to overcome, to conquer. The second is a sexual desire. Theologians debated for centuries which one of the two the meaning was but red pill wisdom says it’s both. First the desire comes in the form of sh!t tests as she seeks to conquer him, wanting to know if he’s fit to rule. When he passes the tests her desire becomes physical. But if he can’t pass the tests? She hates on him. Remember that, I’ll come back to it.

The third part is what really gets women’s goat. Ephesians 5:22-24 is something most women have a really hard time with, but it comes straight from Genesis 3:16. “He shall rule over you.” Women tend to hate 1st Peter 3:1 even more but it too is referring back to the curse. Submit to your husband in *everything* even if he isn’t obedient to God.

This is what feminism is really all about. Women, in rebellion against God, do not want to be ruled by a man (unless it’s a really sexy uber-Alpha… and even then…). You can see a variation of this in just about any situation you might imagine, but it’s far worse in the church than outside the church, and there’s a reason for that.

Feminism got its start within the church when the church invaded the family and usurped the authority of the husband, making rules for the marriage bed. It was set in concrete when the church mandated monogamy. That robbed the husband of one of his best tools, the ability to say “next” within the context of marriage. Because of that, there was a demand for divorce and theologians twisted scripture and came up with a justification for divorce. Once divorce between two believers was allowed in doctrine, it wasn’t long before women had to have the ability to divorce their husbands.

Laws were passed to protect women (from accountability) and women are now exercising the second part of the curse, but that desire to overcome the man, to conquer him, is now backed by the police power of the state. With the threat of that 911 call hanging over their heads, women who would be much happier if their husband would slap the sh!t out of them or drag them into the bedroom and put them over their knee don’t get what they need and want (even if they can’t admit they want it). This is why women are so enamored of thugs with a ZFG attitude. They know that thug will rule over them.

It’s part of the mudshark appeal… they may be black, but they won’t take her sh!t.

With the deck stacked against them, men are checking out and the ending will be very sad. Read Isaiah 3:12 – 4:2. That’s a prophesy that applies to somewhere around the end times (but not during the end times) because Judah is the root, Christ is the true vine and the church is the branch that was grafted in. Read what will happen to the women.

So, no, feminism won’t work because when the big cull comes there’s going to be a reset. and remember what I said about monogamy… see verse 1 of chapter 4.

Now that I think about this Sumo, perhaps all that sun basking is them waiting around to get preggo? Calm before the storm type thing? W/O babies to keep them busy (which they would have by then in a primitive setting) they don’t know what to do except bicker and sunbathe and wait for babies??? Lol. Just thinking out loud here…

Artisanal Toad,
While I don’t see anything immediate to counteract feminism, other than their own stupidity. I can’t hope for Divine intervention. Historically, the only curb to gynocentrism has been very heavy losses of men through war.

That was a very interesting writeup, Sumo.
There was one thing that was missing…the men who went to the “women Island” were too indocrinated by feminism to just order the women to listen to them.
If they had, they would have worked far less hard and the women would have ten-ee-hutted and done what was expected of them. No reason they couldn’t. I’ll bet the request to “forage” wasn’t very stern.

A leader needed to say: Hey, you don’t help build this, you don’t get to use it”/ “You don’t help forage and actually find something, you don’t get to eat” and so forth.

Here is what happened: initially both groups were dropped on their respective islands, given some supplies to get started and left to fend for themselves. In both groups there was some initial squabbling as people tried to figure out a local hierarchy. The men pretty much did whatever they felt was necessary – there was no leader giving orders. Men who felt like hunting, foraging or fishing did so. Another guy decided he was fed up with sitting on sand and started making benches. Others built a hut that gradually grew and evolved. Another guy cooked every night. Within days a neat little civilization was thriving, each day being slightly more prosperous than the previous one.

huts

The women settled into a routine as well. The hung up a clothesline to dry their towels, then proceeded to sunbathe and squabble. Because unlike men, women were unable to do anything without consensus of the whole group. And because it was a group of at least a dozen women, consensus was never reached. During the next few episodes, the women ate all their initial supplies, got drenched by tropical storms several times, were eaten alive by sand fleas and were generally miserable. The men on the other hand, were quite content. There were disagreements of course, but they were generally resolved.

@ fuzzie true, I think both men and women were hoodwinked by the propaganda that feminism was pro-woman and good and harmless when there was another agenda (female supremacy, basically) that many people even today don’t really clue into. Like a lot of progressive stuff, it’s got that “feel good” veneer. The wolf in sheep’s clothing.

“In the meanwhile, it has done a lot of damage. It will be a long time recovering.”

What recovering will there ever be?????

I believe any social construct resembling what we had prior to the 1960’s is over for good. The only event that can restore a patriarchal arrangement would be some sort of large scale catastrophe that would result in women needing men for protection. Perhaps a large scale EMP attack or my son might hypothesize a zombie apocalypse. People will NOT see the destruction of feminism and just decide to revert back. If anything, men will be blamed for not going along good enough with female supremacy and as a result stronger and stronger iterations of feminism will be further inflicted.

I haven’t posted here in a while. In my brain I picture the lady readers squirming in their seats with enchanted joy as they ingest a new thought by Poseidon. I consequently feel flattered.

This blog has gone kinda quiet. Shall I attribute this demonstration of quietness to a metaphorical gear shift to an unspoken posture of rumination? Not healthy to dwell on life’s negative aspects too often. Perhaps an exchange of sammiches or a messagement of shoulders would sufficiently interrupt this funkscious calm. Or perhaps running down the street with only one’s birthday suit visible would superimpose our current raucous expressionary modality. But that activity could result in a more robust ruminatorous abasement.

Regardless, I’m glad I could be of help Liz. Good to see you again as well.

At times in my life I blamed myself for adverse circumstances that were not in my control. I currently find myself feeling at fault for not posting on this blog more often. Perhaps if I had been more present, the quietness here would not have manifested to this degree. Yes, not at all fair to the readers, lurkers, and posters that I have not continued with my presence here on this blog. All I can do at this point is ask for forgiveness and repent by correcting my provisionment of my opinions to a more quantitous measure.